Been frying my corals because of this!

[madweazl]

Disregard, info already posted.

 

[jda]

I would caution people from assuming that all light is the same. I would certainly keep levels near those published values if I was using LED. However, I can unequivocally grow A. Millepora faster and more colorful under 500 PAR of Metal Halide than at 180-220 PAR (Apogee 510 measured)... it is not even close. I only care about acropora and clams, so please understand that I have no idea about other stuff - however, I do grow Bounces and Jawbreakers since they are easy to grow and sell and the also seem to grow faster under 400+ PAR in my frag tanks.

Quality lets you know how high you can have the quantity... not all light sources are the same, IMO.

 

[Dana Riddle]

I would caution people from assuming that all light is the same. I would certainly keep levels near those published values if I was using LED. However, I can unequivocally grow A. Millepora faster and more colorful under 500 PAR of Metal Halide than at 180-220 PAR (Apogee 510 measured)... it is not even close. I only care about acropora and clams, so please understand that I have no idea about other stuff - however, I do grow Bounces and Jawbreakers since they are easy to grow and sell and the also seem to grow faster under 400+ PAR in my frag tanks.

Quality lets you know how high you can have the quantity... not all light sources are the same, IMO.

Quite true. For the sake of debate (and this needs to be elucidated) if the PPFD of blue LEDs mimics that found at 20 m depth, is it that far off from the compensation/saturation data reported at that depth in peer-reviewed literature?

 

[jda]

For the sake of debate, maybe. Probably. I would argue that I also do not have 6 corals in my tank that came from depths of more then 3m and while some might grow down there, they were probably not collected there when wild. I have seen acropora collected and is nearly all is with a mask and snorkel or by just wading in the water. Even the so-called deep waters, will thrive in shallow depths and I have a Lorpies in my tank that I got in about 2 feet of water with just my shoes on. I have never been down 20 meters since I lack the certification to do it safely and also inclination. The collectors say that the same coral grow deeper as well as shallow, so they certainly appear quite adaptable. What I do know is that if higher PAR will actually damage the acropora, then the stuff would not thrive so well that it grows OUT OF THE WATER. My assumption is that the sunlight is the perfect quality and that the quantity can be quite high as a result. Again, my focus on mostly on acropora, so YMMV with other stuff.

This is not my photo, but these do not look to be suffering from too much light in any way, shape or form:

 

[cracker]

Beautiful pic from jda! Those corals Are quite used to their conditions . Now there is a lot of high end info here about over saturation. which I basically understand. Too much light,one can hinder your corals from growing & being healthy, as well as not enough.
I have a simple Apogee par meter. I have an idea of how strong the lighting is in any given spot. One can always wonder if the light is just right .

 

[Dana Riddle]

For the sake of debate, maybe. Probably. I would argue that I also do not have 6 corals in my tank that came from depths of more then 3m and while some might grow down there, they were probably not collected there when wild. I have seen acropora collected and is nearly all is with a mask and snorkel or by just wading in the water. Even the so-called deep waters, will thrive in shallow depths and I have a Lorpies in my tank that I got in about 2 feet of water with just my shoes on. I have never been down 20 meters since I lack the certification to do it safely and also inclination. The collectors say that the same coral grow deeper as well as shallow, so they certainly appear quite adaptable. What I do know is that if higher PAR will actually damage the acropora, then the stuff would not thrive so well that it grows OUT OF THE WATER. My assumption is that the sunlight is the perfect quality and that the quantity can be quite high as a result. Again, my focus on mostly on acropora, so YMMV with other stuff.

This is not my photo, but these do not look to be suffering from too much light in any way, shape or form:

Yes, you make the point, corals can survive without water. That is an incredibly harsh environment - desiccation, exposure to high PPFD, UV, temperature... all this seems to invalidate your point that spectral quality makes that much of a difference.

 

[ca1ore]

Playing Devils advocate - you know your tank best, of course, but I'd find it odd that absolute light levels were leading to losses. OK, initial acclimation is very important, but I've found my SPS to be extremely tolerant of different light levels. They may change appearance as a result, but rarely fail to thrive. What can happen is that a number of factors contribute to losses. Corals that are already stressed may die from light levels that would not kill them if they were not stressed.

I responded to the poll as using a PAR meter, specifically the PMK. I find it borderline useless frankly, and if I had it to do over I would not bother. The sensor is always getting covered in coraline algae, readings fluctuate with surface movement and I hate the cord. I've yet to feel it necessary to do any adjustments based on sensors that weren't more easily judged by just looking at the tank.

 

[jda]

I disagree that it invalidates the point, unless you are suggesting that desiccation, UV, temperature are a benefit to overcome the supposed detriment of the high PPFD. Why else would a Chinese Black Box with white diodes up too high fry coral out of existence in nearly perfect conditions at 350-400 PAR when a supposed over saturation of sunlight cannot harm them in these harsh conditions where they should be weaker to begin with. What would those be getting, about 2000 to 2200 PPFD? If so, then this is 6-8x more than what is supposed in some papers. Surely if over saturation of high quality was indeed a detriment, then the other harsh conditions such as UV, temp, etc. would finish them off faster, not be so hardy that they can overcome and thrive.

I believe that this illustrates the point like other that spectrum and quality does matter. Reverse the logic... if we give less harsh environment than this, why will coral burn and die with 1/6 of the quantity of some types of light?

 

[Luno]

Colorful corals are often photo-inhibited. When I managed one of the first commercial coral farms in the late 90's, we were under the belief that zoox clades were infinitely adaptable to light intensities (at least to natural levels.) We grew some beautiful corals just inches below Iwasaki 400w daylight lamps at intensities approaching PPFD values of 800-900. Great color and slow growth.
The results presented in the MACNA presentation were from trials repeated 3 times, but only for Porites lobata. I posted a list of compensation/saturation/photoinhibition points garnered from peer-reviewed literature a few minutes ago in this thread. As for myself, I never found a saturation point exceeding perhaps 500 micromole/m2/sec in any shallow water Hawaiian corals (collected at 1 meter depth or so.) Tridacna clams are different and can tolerate high light with no signs of saturation, much less photoinhibition.

Late reply, sorry was 3am here in Australia when i was posting last night.

For me I'd like to know a lot of variables on the coral tested. Like what parameters the coral came from and what light source the coral came from and then was tested. If you take a coral from a par of 200 and then drill it with a par of 500 plus it's not gonna have a good time. Coral can adapt to many things we assume it can't, look at our tank raised corals we are producing some incredible things colour-wise that wouldn't be found naturally (or not that I have seen). As mentioned previously some sps coral can survive out of the water for hours on end in the wild because it has adapted to do and been doing it most its life.

I will say that I don't care for grown much, I mean my coral always grows somewhat but I don't strive to make my coral grow quick. Colour is always my priority.

Just realized your name is the same as the guy in the video so I'm gonna assume you are one and the same. I don't have a high level of science in reefing, i don't devote my time to scientifically testing it and thus I can't give more than my personal experience which won't bare as much weight as someone like you. As mentioned before I'm in medicine so I can respect the level that scientific testing goes to. And any results under controlled testing cannot be ignored. In my field while paying close attention to research though, I also put more bearing on my own anecdotal evidence because for me that's what I can replicate. And that's what I will tend to follow in reefing if I can replicate something time and time again even if different to others than it makes sense to continue to do so.

Maybe my Acro gets accustomed to higher level of light, maybe my light quality differs from others there's also many variables in the quality as mentioned above to broad light into a narrow field. In reefing I've found there are many ways to achieve results in coral, I'd be curious to see if a lower level par for longer periods would be compatible for a higher level par for shorter periods. Or a comparison between the two.

@Luno you mentioned you ran as high as 700 PAR. I am curious how high your Alkalinity was? I am guessing it was high. Was it strong flow, high nutrients as well? Overall I suppose I am interested if those with success running higher PAR also run other parameters high as well as I would expect. Thanks

This was back in metal hallide and t5 days prior to led, I think led was just starting and was unaware how effective and how good quality it could be. But to answer your question, the light quality was mostly a whiter spectrum and my alk was around 6.5-7 being that I was using NSW. Nitrates were stablish around 20-30 and phosphates 0.05. These days I try to run low to ultralow nutrient systems and under led I probably wouldn't run par that high, I'd say is max out par at 250-300 from led and add another 200-250 with t5. Giving my max 500-600. I also agree with what was posted above that there seems to be a difference in quality and levels of par between led and the MH/t5.

 

[SashimiTurtle]

Tested PAR yesterday on my less than week old tank, today it cracked. New tank on the way... but this is 4 ATI actinic bulbs and 3 A160WEs at 35% color and 100% intensity. Lights are 6" over the water.

 

[Servillius]

" I do wish folks would stop interpreting as an injunction that 350 par is going to kill your tank."

In all due respect, I don't believe anyone here has implied that as fact. Actually there are plenty of others that can run extremely high par values and have on problem growing very colorful corals.

There is, on the other hand, have been uncountless threads that I've responded to here on reef2reef with reefers that have posted bleached or severe color fading due to high par levels north of 400+. As a side note, they almost all have near zero nutrients and higher alkalinity levels. Recipe for disaster.

The other hand is examples like Dr. Sanjay Joshi that can get away with par values around 1400! He can do this because his tank runs at that level for a short time, plus nutrients are sky high with extreme water flow.

Everyone's tank and inhabitants are different. For me, lower to Dana's findings work very well for me.

I’ll offer one counter-example. This thread by our fearless leader is about an 80 PAR difference resulting in “frying” corals. I get that’s intentional hyperbole and that people aren’t being that precise, but if I added 80 PAR to my halides there’d be very little frying going on.

That whole discussion about whether LEDs work has gone out of fashion (because it was silly, they do), but this frying thing seems to have at least a little to do with the light type.

 

[Servillius]

I’ll offer one counter-example. This thread by our fearless leader is about an 80 PAR difference resulting in “frying” corals. I get that’s intentional hyperbole and that people aren’t being that precise, but if I added 80 PAR to my halides there’d be very little frying going on.

That whole discussion about whether LEDs work has gone out of fashion (because it was silly, they do), but this frying thing seems to have at least a little to do with the light type.

Also wow did I wonder off topic!

Yes, I use an Apogee I borrow from my LFS

 

[Merv49]

Finally got a Neptune System PMK (par meter) and was able to test it against my 10+ year apogee par meter and the PMK is testing about 80 par higher than my old meter. Which really explains a lot of confusing coral deaths. I love the long wire on the PMK and that I can place it anywhere and just eye the reading on the controller display, ipad or phone. I know this sounds a bit like a commercial but it's not, I'm just really happy with it so far and super happy to have some better data on par levels in the tank!

• So with all that said I am wondering how many of you use a PAR meter of some sort and what brand do you use?

• Have you ever found discrepancies between par meters?

I have the Neptune PMK and I do use it but I’m skeptical about it’s accuracy. I saw a BRS par meter comparison of several par meters but the PMK was not included.
What makes me skeptical is the low readings I believe I’m getting, only mid 300’s at 70% setteig with my AP700’s mounted 7 inches above the water, measuring at about 8 inches deep. Without another meter to compare it to how do I know the meter is accurate.
On another note, the PMK is excruciatingly slow to take readings. I use it but not with any sort of real confidence. Anyone have if the same doubts?
I have pretty much set my max intensity to about 80% for a four hour period and look to my orals to let me know if they are happy.

 

[SGREEFER310]

I have a apogee mq510 and now wondering if I should send it out to the company to get recalibrated

 

[Dana Riddle]

I have the Neptune PMK and I do use it but I’m skeptical about it’s accuracy. I saw a BRS par meter comparison of several par meters but the PMK was not included.
What makes me skeptical is the low readings I believe I’m getting, only mid 300’s at 70% setteig with my AP700’s mounted 7 inches above the water, measuring at about 8 inches deep. Without another meter to compare it to how do I know the meter is accurate.
On another note, the PMK is excruciatingly slow to take readings. I use it but not with any sort of real confidence. Anyone have if the same doubts?
I have pretty much set my max intensity to about 80% for a four hour period and look to my orals to let me know if they are happy.

See here for AP700 PPFD measurements I did for a product review:
https://www.advancedaquarist.com/20...ider&utm_medium=slider&utm_campaign=clickthru
Your measurements seem to be ballpark.

 

[Dana Riddle]

This thread has me thinking of new experimental protocols. I think I can settle issues debated here. Into the lab I go.

 

[fabutahoun]

I am using PMK form the start of my tank, I like it. Very easy to use and helpful in targeting the right PAR for corals specially under Radions, as Radions sometime can be too strong.

 

[Saintnovakai]

Cant wait for Dana's findings. Ive been running his suggestions and ive experienced faster growth in my monticap than previously higher PAR values. It seems corals react like a bodybuilder. Everything done in incrementa will lead to good growth but they can only take so much at any one point based on their current physiology. No doubt that corals can and do grow under intense light but I bet they didnt get that way a week in.
Also everyone has been focused on SPS corals. Id have liked to have seen data on inhibition rates on LPS and Maybe even Softies. Can they become as adaptive as their SPS counterpart? Can colour and growth be spurred forward with higher light levels? Can a select range of 455-420nm be the ultimate growth range if it can reach the PAR levels a full spectrum light and as such eliminate the unecessary Full spectrum wavelengths as growth contributors and just relegate it to looks?

 

[Luno]

This thread has me thinking of new experimental protocols. I think I can settle issues debated here. Into the lab I go.

I think that sounds like a great idea, you could always open it up to ask on here. Say your basic plan for the experiment and see if anyone has any variables, groups or anything to add that may not come to your head straight away. And may interest you in including.

 

[TexasTodd]

Great thread. Thanks for sharing Dana's presentation.
Dana, how does the max saturation play into growth still in the p.m.? From descriptions on this before I'd think they would shut down until the next day versus firing up again in the p.m. after likely hitting max sat. This makes me think that a long photo period, at the peak PAR for max growth, would keep them growing.
Todd